Post navigation

Medical Officer of Health does not have the authority to stop noxious wind turbines

Just in case we thought the wind turbines would be ordered to be mitigated or shut down if health problems were noticed in the Huron County Health study – nope that’s not gonna happen. Read the correspondence below and you will realize that it is all just ‘process’, with no action to ‘correct’ on the horizon. Basically more people are just being used as test subjects. That’s it. And that’s flat out unacceptable.

Thanks to Richard Mann, Associate Professor Department of Computer Science; University of Waterloo for this.

One of the issues the University of Waterloo ethics committee asked us to address was the hope residents had that, at some time, the Medical Officer of Health would be able to write an order curtailing or shutting down the wind turbines. We had already stated in the recruitment materials that the study would not generate sufficient evidence to prove wind turbines cause health problems (establishing causality) but the ethics committee questioned whether we were providing enough information on the limits of the Medical Officer of Health’s authority. To address that concern, we have spoken with individuals experienced in interpreting the Health Protection and Promotion Act (HPPA) specifically, sections 11 (investigating health hazards) and 13 (writing orders). They provided us with the attached documents that outline the limits on the MOH’s authority to write orders.

The first document (Pelletier v Northwestern Health Unit) is the proceedings from an Ontario Health Services Appeal and Review Board and the second (Court File 2006-01-04) is a judicial review of the appeal hearing by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Essentially, these documents state that when the Legislature places the authority to regulate with one organization, such as municipal councils or the Ministry of the Environment, the courts do not accept that there was an intention to give the same authority to the MOH under section 13 of the HPPA. The rulings were made when the Northwestern Health Unit MOH wrote orders prohibiting exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (second hand smoke) in several bars and restaurants. At the time the orders were written, exposure to environmental tobacco smoke was (and still is) deemed a health hazard.

Since the Legislature assigned the duty to regulate wind turbines to the Ministry of the Environment and not the health units, the courts will not recognize the authority of the MOH under section 13 of the HPPA to write an order curtailing or shutting down the wind turbines.

I will be putting these documents on the health unit website soon, however, I wanted you to have a chance to read them first. The documents are publicly available at

In your letter of May 12, 2017, which has been furnished by Professor Richard Mann, you wrote:
“…the ethics committee questioned whether we were providing enough information on the limits of the Medical Officer of Health’s authority. To address that concern, we have spoken with individuals experienced in interpreting the Health Protection and Promotion Act (HPPA) specifically, sections 11 (investigating health hazards) and 13 (writing orders). They provided us with the attached documents that outline the limits on the MOH’s authority to write orders.”

What are the names of the “individuals experienced in interpreting the Health Protection and Promotion Act (HPPA)” that you were referring to.

Please feel free to provide this information on the Ontario-Wind-Resistance.org website at your earliest opportunity.

The symptoms from smoking may or may not have detrimental affects on your health, but if they do, it will be a long time into the future. Harm from wind turbines is almost immediate, and the effects are far more devastating.

sad and dismayed. I believe that the only way anything will stop these things is 1. stop the money flow, at least in the US
2. And, a class action law suit with good facts and medical records of before wind turbines, after wind turbines.

No, I don’t.. When the wind company was coming to our county we approached the county health department and suggested that people who would be near the wind turbines have a health exam and that way there is actually proof that there has been an impact.

Luckily they several small town councils pulled any support and then funding fail short & they left (at least for now)

I believe with facts and and good lawyer it might work. hit them at the pocketbook!!

In Huron County people were told that the turbines would not harm them because they were sited far enough away. People believed that so would not have realized they needed to have a medical examination before the turbines started operating.
However, once the turbines started running the changes in their health became apparent. Neighbours started talking to one another and noticed that they had had ‘episodes’ at the same times as others had…to the hour. They began reporting this to the wind company and municipal leaders. The problems continued, so they expanded the list of people to whom they reported. In an effort to get the MOECC to realize there were distinct patterns, they documented the weather conditions and wind speed at the time when symptoms occurred. In good faith they believed that the wind company and the MOECC would recognize when the atmospheric conditions and wind speed caused the harm they were experiencing. This went on for many months. Eventually they expanded the list of recipients to over 50 people; all off whom were collectively responsible and ought to have worked together to make the necessary changes…to no avail. All emails and responses, or lack thereof were saved as evidence of ‘neglect of duty to protect’.
Eventually residents held a teleconference with Diane Saxe, the Environment Commissioner, in the hope that she would take action that would lead to their protection, but nothing came of that either.
The MOECC was ill equipped to even measure audible noise. Officers arrived on the scene long after the reports were made. Eventually, at the request of residents, the MOECC installed onsite, long term equipment at homes, which residents could use inside their homes to record the noise when it was the worst, day or night. These efforts were in vain also because of equipment problems.
So anyone thinking that the MOECC acted responsibly has been mislead.

“We had already stated in the recruitment materials that the study would not generate sufficient evidence to prove wind turbines cause health problems (establishing causality)…”

Please EXPLAIN HOW YOU RECONCILE YOUR STATEMENT with, for example, the Howe Gastmeier Chapnik Engineers report for the Ontario Ministry of the Environment in 2010, which found:

“The audible sound from wind turbines, at the levels experienced at typical receptor distances in Ontario, is nonetheless expected to result in a nontrivial percentage of persons being highly annoyed.”

How is it that HGC Engineers reported to the Ontario government in 2010 that this kind of harm was known to be caused by exposure to industrial wind energy projects, but that your research has been designed to be, as you wrote, “insufficient to prove wind turbines cause health problems”?

Just what do you think it means, in a “HEALTH PROBLEMS” context, that a non-trivial percentage of persons, including children, are expected to be “HIGHLY ANNOYED”? And in terms that laypersons can understand, please and thank-you.

We did not receive a letter of approval. As stated in my reply below, we received a letter outlining issues the ethics committee would like us to address and we will now work on a response to that letter.

We value breastfeeding and are committed to helping parents make informed decisions about infant nutrition.

This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original message and all copies.

Would you please tell me is that letter an approval or are there more steps required before the investigation will begin?

Also, if you get out of Email contact again, would you please give me the contact information for someone who can answer my further questions.

As you no doubt aware, this is a matter of utmost urgency, as there are people living under turbines and their associated sound emissions right now. They are urgently awaiting a response on this issue.

We value breastfeeding and are committed to helping parents make informed decisions about infant nutrition.

This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original message and all copies.

We value breastfeeding and are committed to helping parents make informed decisions about infant nutrition.

This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original message and all copies.

We value breastfeeding and are committed to helping parents make informed decisions about infant nutrition.

This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original message and all copies.

We value breastfeeding and are committed to helping parents make informed decisions about infant nutrition.

This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original message and all copies.

We did not seek a legal opinion on interpretation of sections 11 and 13 of the Health Protection and Promotion Act, therefore, we are not providing the names of the individuals we spoke to. The extent of their involvement was to direct us to the Ontario Superior Court ruling on the matter. If you disagree with the information I have provided, you can seek a legal opinion from a lawyer. I have attached the court rulings to this email in case you missed them in the previous email. Both documents are publicly available.

We value breastfeeding and are committed to helping parents make informed decisions about infant nutrition.

This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original message and all copies.

We value breastfeeding and are committed to helping parents make informed decisions about infant nutrition.

This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original message and all copies.

In a previous email you said that you were responding to suggestions from Waterloo Ethics.

Have you revised/ resubmitted to Waterloo Ethics yet?

If so, can you please tell me date you submitted and when a response is expected.

Thanks,
Richard

On 05/02/2017 10:46 AM, Erica Clark wrote:

Hello Richard,

As outlined in the Tri-Council Policy Statement the role of a research ethics committee is to review the ethical acceptability of research involving human participants and to provide guidance and recommendations to the investigators to ensure the research study adheres to the Policy Statement. The Committee’s concerns are to be focused on the ethical treatment of participants while participating in the study. It is not the Committee’s mandate to speculate about the potential study outcomes or to make a determination if wind turbines are harmful or beneficial. Once the study has received ethics clearance we will continue to share information with the community including any changes that were made to the study protocols based on the Committee’s recommendations. We recognize that the information is of great interest to community members.

We value breastfeeding and are committed to helping parents make informed decisions about infant nutrition.

This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original message and all copies.

I received a letter from the University of Waterloo ethics committee today requesting some final wording changes in the study materials. I will let you know when I send a letter back to the University of Waterloo ethics committee.

We value breastfeeding and are committed to helping parents make informed decisions about infant nutrition.

This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original message and all copies.

We value breastfeeding and are committed to helping parents make informed decisions about infant nutrition.

This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original message and all copies.

We value breastfeeding and are committed to helping parents make informed decisions about infant nutrition.

This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original message and all copies.

Can you please tell me the status of the ethics application?
I understand the application was submitted on Aug 9th.

Can you please tell me,
– when the Ethics board met (or will meet) to hear the case
– when you expect to hear a reply.

Thanks,
Richard

On 08/01/2017 08:36 AM, Erica Clark wrote:

Dear Dr. Mann,

We received a reply from the University of Waterloo ethics committee on June 27, 2017. We will be sending a response when we have finished addressing the concerns. We will publish a list of the concerns discussed during ethics review after the process has been completed.

We value breastfeeding and are committed to helping parents make informed decisions about infant nutrition.

This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original message and all copies.

Dear Erica,
Can you please update me on the status of the investigation?

In particular,
– When did you receive the reply from Waterloo ethics
– What concerns were raised
– If/ When you expect to re-submit the application.

Thanks,
Richard

On 07/04/2017 04:23 PM, Erica Clark wrote:

Dear Dr. Mann,

We did not receive a letter of approval. As stated in my reply below, we received a letter outlining issues the ethics committee would like us to address and we will now work on a response to that letter.

We value breastfeeding and are committed to helping parents make informed decisions about infant nutrition.

This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original message and all copies.

Would you please tell me is that letter an approval or are there more steps required before the investigation will begin?

Also, if you get out of Email contact again, would you please give me the contact information for someone who can answer my further questions.

As you no doubt aware, this is a matter of utmost urgency, as there are people living under turbines and their associated sound emissions right now. They are urgently awaiting a response on this issue.

We value breastfeeding and are committed to helping parents make informed decisions about infant nutrition.

This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original message and all copies.

We value breastfeeding and are committed to helping parents make informed decisions about infant nutrition.

This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original message and all copies.

We value breastfeeding and are committed to helping parents make informed decisions about infant nutrition.

This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original message and all copies.

We value breastfeeding and are committed to helping parents make informed decisions about infant nutrition.

This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original message and all copies.

We did not seek a legal opinion on interpretation of sections 11 and 13 of the Health Protection and Promotion Act, therefore, we are not providing the names of the individuals we spoke to. The extent of their involvement was to direct us to the Ontario Superior Court ruling on the matter. If you disagree with the information I have provided, you can seek a legal opinion from a lawyer. I have attached the court rulings to this email in case you missed them in the previous email. Both documents are publicly available.

We value breastfeeding and are committed to helping parents make informed decisions about infant nutrition.

This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original message and all copies.

We value breastfeeding and are committed to helping parents make informed decisions about infant nutrition.

This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original message and all copies.

In a previous email you said that you were responding to suggestions from Waterloo Ethics.

Have you revised/ resubmitted to Waterloo Ethics yet?

If so, can you please tell me date you submitted and when a response is expected.

Thanks,
Richard

On 05/02/2017 10:46 AM, Erica Clark wrote:

Hello Richard,

As outlined in the Tri-Council Policy Statement the role of a research ethics committee is to review the ethical acceptability of research involving human participants and to provide guidance and recommendations to the investigators to ensure the research study adheres to the Policy Statement. The Committee’s concerns are to be focused on the ethical treatment of participants while participating in the study. It is not the Committee’s mandate to speculate about the potential study outcomes or to make a determination if wind turbines are harmful or beneficial. Once the study has received ethics clearance we will continue to share information with the community including any changes that were made to the study protocols based on the Committee’s recommendations. We recognize that the information is of great interest to community members.

We value breastfeeding and are committed to helping parents make informed decisions about infant nutrition.

This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original message and all copies.

We value breastfeeding and are committed to helping parents make informed decisions about infant nutrition.

This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original message and all copies.

Can you please tell me,
– what date did you submit your ethics application
– on what date is your file scheduled to be heard/ adjudicated

Richard

On 09/19/2017 04:56 PM, Erica Clark wrote:

Dear Dr. Mann,

I received a letter from the University of Waterloo ethics committee today requesting some final wording changes in the study materials. I will let you know when I send a letter back to the University of Waterloo ethics committee.

We value breastfeeding and are committed to helping parents make informed decisions about infant nutrition.

This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original message and all copies.

On 10/12/2017 11:30 AM, Erica Clark wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Just a quick note to let you know that we have received research
> ethics clearance from the University of Waterloo for the wind turbine
> study. A press release is going out this morning with the date and
> time of our community meeting (Oct 26, 2017 at 7pm at the Huron County
> Health Unit). Once Ive got the study materials printed and
> distributed to the Huron County Library branches, a second press
> release will go out announcing the start of recruitment. That will
> occur in the next couple of weeks.
>
> Thanks
>
> Erica
>
Dear Erica,
CC: Dr M Bokout, HU MOH
CC: Jean-Guy Albert (HCHU)

Now that Waterloo ethics has approved your submission, would you please
send me the materials and the approval letter?

Also, I would like to attend the October 26th meeting. Is this open to
citizens outside Huron County?

Reminder: all of this effort and all the resources that have been consumed purport to be in fulfillment of the Ontario Health Protection and Promotion Act, Section 11, Duty to Investigate.

Section 11 states, very clearly, “where a complaint is made… the medical officer of health shall investigate the complaint to determine whether a health hazard exists or does not exist.”

The HPPA defines “Health Hazard”:
“(a) a condition of a premises, (b) a substance, thing, plant or animal other than man, or (c) a solid, liquid, gas or combination of any of them, that is likely to have an adverse effect on the health of any person.”

Looking forward to evaluating, in the context of the big picture that some persons including children are being injured and forced to vacate their homes and endure other hardships, whether the “Study” that Ms. Clark and her colleagues have designed is the most efficient use of limited public resources “to determine whether a health hazard exists or does not exist.”

Has Ms. Clark retracted her misleading and perhaps fraudulent interpretation of the HPPA, Section 13, “Order of a Medical Officer of Health”, in which she attempted to deny that a Medical Officer of Health has the authority to order “a person to take or to refrain from taking any action,” ” where he or she is of the opinion, upon reasonable and probable grounds, (a) that a health hazard exists in the health unit served by him or her.”?

How is one to have faith in the future results of a so-called Scientific inquiry, if the Method is Junk?

What is the purpose of a local Medical Officer of Health spending tax dollars in a local health unit “investigating” “to determine whether a health hazard exists or does not exist”?

Throughout years of litigation, judicial review, and ERT hearings here in Ontario, the industry including regulators have taken the position that each project is unique and its impacts must be evaluated separately.

Isn’t it PREJUDICIAL of Ms. Clark, Dr. Bokout, and their colleagues to take a position that their investigation will not reveal results which compel the local Medical Officer of Health to invoke their authority under Section 13 of the HPPA, to order the operators of the turbines to “refrain” from taking a particular action, for example, not operating turbines at night, etc.

I think the Complainants will not be satisfied being human lab rats to be observed by the Huron County Health Unit merely for the purpose of “increasing our understanding” of the harm caused by exposure to industrial wind energy projects.

Decades ago the Nazis experimented on persons to test the limits of human endurance (ie – death). The way the Huron County Health Unit appears to be carrying out their HPPA Investigation seems awfully similar.

We value breastfeeding and are committed to helping parents make informed decisions about infant nutrition.

This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original message and all copies.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Name *

Email *

Website

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

This article is the work of the source indicated. The copyright of this article is owned by the author or publisher indicated. Its availability here constitutes a "fair use" as provided for in section 29 of the Canadian Copyright Law as well as in similar "fair dealing" exceptions of the copyright laws of other nations, as part of Ontario Wind Resistance's noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a provincial and global audience seeking such information.